Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download

Comparison Overview

CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)
VS
RijkswaterstaatRijkswaterstaat
CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

30 Boulevard de Bury, Angoulême, 16910, FR

Last Update: 01/04/2026

View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://assurance-maladie.fr
759/1000Fair

Travailler à l’Assurance Maladie, c’est s’engager au sein d’un collectif animé par la culture du résultat, où chacun met ses compétences au service de nombreux projets pour protéger la santé de plus de 60 millions d’assurés. L'Assurance Maladie de la Charente, c’est 29...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:64
Subsidiaries:113
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

Koningskade 4, Den Haag, 2500 EX, NL

Last Update: 02/04/2026

View Profile
783/1000Fair

Rijkswaterstaat is de uitvoeringsorganisatie van het Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. We beheren en ontwikkelen de rijkswegen, -vaarwegen en –wateren en zetten in op een duurzame leefomgeving. Samen met andere organisaties werken we aan een land dat bescher...

NAICS:92
NAICS Definition:Public Administration
Employees:12,096
Subsidiaries:2
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Ranges Comparison

Based On Specific Ai Models Category
CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

-
ISO 27001Not verified
ISO 27001
-
SOC2 Type 1Not verified
SOC2 Type 1
-
SOC2 Type 2Not verified
SOC2 Type 2
-
GDPRNot verified
GDPR
-
PCI DSSNot verified
PCI DSS
-
HIPAANot verified
HIPAA

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) in 2026.

Incidents

Incidents vs Government Administration Industry Avg (This Year)

No incidents recorded for Rijkswaterstaat in 2026.

Incidents

Incident History - CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Incident History - Rijkswaterstaat (X = Date, Y = Severity)

Rijkswaterstaat cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries.

No timeline data available
R - Ransomware
C - Cyber Attack
D - Data Breach
V - Vulnerability

Notable Incidents

Last Cyber / HR Incidents / Global...
CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie)

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.
Rijkswaterstaat

Rijkswaterstaat

Incidents
No explicit notable incidents reported.

FAQ

Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has the best AI Cybersecurity Score ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents in the past ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced more cyber incidents this year ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced at least one ransomware attack ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced at least one data breach ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced at least one targeted cyberattack ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has experienced at least one vulnerability ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one holds the most compliance certifications ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one holds the fewest compliance certifications ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has the most subsidiaries ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) company and Rijkswaterstaat company, which one has the largest number of employees ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) and Rijkswaterstaat, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 1 certifications ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) and Rijkswaterstaat, which company holds both SOC 2 Type 2 certifications ?
Which company is ISO 27001 certified - CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) or Rijkswaterstaat ?
Which company is PCI DSS compliant - CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) or Rijkswaterstaat ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) and Rijkswaterstaat, which company complies with HIPAA regulations for healthcare data ?
Between CPAM de la Charente (Assurance Maladie) and Rijkswaterstaat, which company complies with GDPR requirements ?

Latest Global CVEs

CVE-2026-66064
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/handler.go sendFile handler opened files using a cleaned path but derived the authorization filename from raw req.URL.Path, so a trailing slash could bypass .goshs ACL-file protection and block-list checks. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.3)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.3
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
1.4
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-66063
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.5, the httpserver/updown.go multipart upload handler split part.FileName() on / but did not reject .., allowing an unauthenticated upload with filename .. to create a file outside the served tree. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.5.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 6.5)
CVSS3
Base Score: 6.5
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
2.5
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-64863
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. Prior to 2.1.4, the httpserver/server.go wdGuard handled WebDAV MOVE as a write-only method and did not enforce --no-delete, allowing WebDAV clients to delete or overwrite files via MOVE with Overwrite: T. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-62325
SUMMARY

goshs is a feature-rich single-binary file server for red teamers and developers. From 2.1.3 until 2.1.4, the sftpserver/sftpserver.go password handler used Username != "" && Password != "", so running goshs with -b 'admin:' -sftp and no -fkf left both SFTP authentication handlers unset and allowed unauthenticated file access. This issue is fixed in version 2.1.4.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 9.1)
CVSS3
Base Score: 9.1
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
5.2
EXPLOITABILITY
3.9
CVE-2026-59921
SUMMARY

Netty is an asynchronous, event-driven network application framework. Prior to versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final, HttpPostRequestEncoder constructs multipart HTTP request bodies by directly concatenating user-supplied filenames and field names into Content-Disposition MIME headers without validating or sanitizing CRLF characters (\r\n). Since MIME headers are delimited by CRLF, an attacker who controls the filename can inject arbitrary MIME headers into the multipart body part. The root cause is that neither the encoder nor the FileUpload implementations' setFilename() methods, which only check for null, neutralize CRLF characters before the filename is embedded into the header. This issue has been fixed in versions 4.1.136.Final and 4.2.16.Final.

PUBLISHED
Date2026-07-28
UPDATED
Date2026-07-28
RISK INFORMATION (Score: 5.7)
CVSS3
Base Score: 5.7
Complexity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
IMPACT SCORE
3.6
EXPLOITABILITY
2.1